The only thing you need to know is that I don't owe your bishop any obedience and that I am therefore free to develop my opinions and arguments in ways totally independent of your bishop. Everything else is tangential.

Nonsense, PtA. If your bishop regards Fr Ambrose's bishop as canonical, therefore, by default, you are obliged to recognise the canonicity of that other bishop. What is tangential to this thread is your persistent baiting and harassment of Fr Ambrose, to which he has responded with dignity and grace. Shame on you.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Conciliation, convergence and high treason

As things unravel, one becomes aware of the fact that, contrary to the bishops’ denial, there has indeed been a unification process taking place and the pro-MP faction has been fast at work for years. Newspapers mention it without any reservation, yet the bishops dare keep it from their flock. One might begin with 1997, when in an Interview with the MP entitled «Надо стремиться к единству Русской Православной Церкви, и в этом направлении я стал предпринимать осторожные шаги» (We Must Strive Towards the Unification of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in that Direction I Began to Take Careful Steps), Archbishop Mark of Germany clearly stated:

Archbishop Mark: “Конечно, безусловно! Надо довести церковный народ до такого сознания, что это- правильный путь» (Of course, indisputably! We must lead the people to such a state of mind, that this is - the right path.)

To this insolent statement vis-à-vis the people of ROCOR, which attempts to brainwash and lead people to a state of mind and which contradicts everything that ROCOR stands for, Metropolitan Vitalii replied:

Vladyko, no one ever, neither Sobor, nor Synod, nor I gave you permission to conduct these ongoing conferences, persistently leading towards a final resolution, as is written in your statement”

To Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco, Archbishop Mark of Germany is known to have written:

Thus, for those who find it hard to believe, the issue is quite simple and Bishop Mark made his position quite clear, ROCOR must unite with World Orthodoxy and Ecumenism, the “heresy of heresies”! One might mention that the May 2001 (SCOBA) Meeting of Orthodox Canonical [sic] Bishops, [as purposely entitled by the Press-Secretary Representative of the MP in the USA], has established a committee and an administrative board that will look into interjurisdictional Orthodox problems in America, with the purpose of «attracting and inviting bishops and representatives of various Orthodox jurisdictions». Slowly but surely, the Church Abroad, if left out of these ecumenical meetings, will begin to be viewed as uncanonical. The path is indeed, highly organized and planned down to even a very specific use of such denigrating vocabulary as uncanonical, sect, fanatic, mentally imbalanced, etc. The sinister Beria, Stalin’s right hand was one of the masterminds behind some of the tactics used to bring people to a state of mind:

It is not always necessary to remove the individual. It is possible to remove his self-willed tendencies to the improvement of the gaols and gains of the whole. The technologies of Psychopolitics are graduated upon the scale which starts somewhat above the removal of the individual himself, upward toward the removal only of those tendencies which bring about his lack of co-operation.

Any man who cannot be persuaded into Communist rationale is to be regarded as somewhat less than sane, and it is therefore completely justified to use the techniques of insanity upon the non-Communist. Entirely by bringing about public conviction that the sanity of a person is in question, it is possible to discount and eradicate all of the goals and activities of that person. By demonstrating the insanity of a group, or even a government, it is possible, then to cause its people to disavow it. By causing a revulsion on the part of the populace against its leader it is possible to stop any government or movement. “A paranoid believes he is being attacked by Communist.” Thus, at once the support of the individual so attacking Communism will fall away and wither. An entire revolution can be effected without the suspicion of a populace until it is an accomplished fact. Just as in Russia we had to destroy, after many, many years of the most arduous work, the Church, so we must destroy all faiths in nations marked for conquest.

The changes of loyalties, allegiances, and sources of command can be occasioned easily by psychopolitical technologies. Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices and national heroes must be systematically carried out, this is the chief function of Communist Party Members, in general, not only the psychopolitician. Every individual who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress.

Dimitry Pospielovsky, a graduate of the London School of Economics and “confident in the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate,” predicts the take-over of Rocor:

“To avoid confrontation and splits, the patriarch has chosen to avoid direct exposure and chastisement of the extremists within the church, concentrating instead on preaching morality, moderation and tolerance [the word tolerance in perestroika terminology, is often used promote conciliation and convergence] to the whole nation and its leaders… The renewed supreme ecclesiastic bodies, mandated by the whole church, commanding the respect and support of the flock, would then be able to take a stand, condemn extremism and racism, and ban dissemination of hatred by any groups within the church. Should this lead to some of the perpetrators of hate propaganda [sic!] joining the ROCOR or some or some other esoteric sect [sic!], it would not hurt the church as a whole; on the contrary, it would purify it and assure it of the position of spiritual leadership in the nation. Moreover, it is only then that the more moderate majority of the ROCOR membership would likely reunite with the mother church, and whatever might remain of the ROCOR would become irrelevant [sic!] as a small extremist sect.”

Why such a meticulously planned take over of Rocor? The answer is the same as “why perestroika?” Economics. Western hard currency for military advancement is an old trick, even before perestroika, from the likes of Armand Hammer who robbed Russia of its treasures, to Lenin’s NEP which fooled the world, to the Rosenbergs who gave away secrets to Soviets on jet engines. Soviets used them in the Korean war, before the US even had a chance to build them! Monastery and church lands forcibly being taken over by the MP are financially beneficial, and of course, power, control and modernization of Orthodoxy have something to do with it as well.

*We have to have all Russians united, wherever they live, whatever they preach!

Author: Why? What is their [the MP's] gain?

*Well, first, economic gain. The Russian community in some parts of the world is quite well off.

Archbishop Mark’s role, as a major leader in the process of unification, is quite clear from his writings and actions, as well from his choice of words, with such terminology as sectarians, fanatics, denigrating anyone dedicated to preserving the purity of Russian Orthodoxy. The Office of External Ecclesiastical Relations of the MP welcomed Archbishop Mark's efforts in joining the ecumenist World Orthodoxy:

On September 9, the body calling itself the Commission of German Orthodox Churches, which incorporates the German Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad headed by Archbishop of Berlin and Germany Mark, published a statement calling for continued communication between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and expressed its disappointment with the Appeal of the ROCA Archbishopric Council of May 13, 1998 which defies such communication.

On the occasion of Orthodox Sunday in 1992, chaired by ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and attended by the Head of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Heads of Holy Orthodox Churches and World Orthodoxy strongly denounced what they labeled as «the schismatic activities of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad». It is important to keep in mind that Rocor considers ecumenism as the «heresy of heresies» and leaders associated with ecumenical organizations during the course of the 20th century, including the World Council of Churches, are the same people, and descendants of those, who laid the path for and brought into being the Revolution.

But I don't personally owe any specific obedience to your bishop, since I'm not in his jurisdiction. I either submit to my bishop's decision to remain in communion with your bishop or I don't, and that's all you need to know.

Do not recall saying you were under obedience to my bishop. But I find it very unorthodox that a person says he has the freedom not to remain in communion with a bishop with whom his own bishop is in communion. What canons allow this "freedom"?

Simple, I can just go join another church. If you don't think that an Orthodox thing to do, that's your prerogative to think that.

Now, Irish Hermit, please stop trying to derail this debate by arguing with what I have repeatedly stated is a peripheral concern. The only thing you need to know is that I don't owe your bishop any obedience and that I am therefore free to develop my opinions and arguments in ways totally independent of your bishop. Everything else is tangential.

If your bishop has Fr.'s bishop in his diptychs, and Fr.'s bishop has defrocked bishop X, then yes, you are bound by Fr.'s bishop. Unless you are making your own diptychs.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Conciliation, convergence and high treason

As things unravel, one becomes aware of the fact that, contrary to the bishops’ denial, there has indeed been a unification process taking place and the pro-MP faction has been fast at work for years. Newspapers mention it without any reservation, yet the bishops dare keep it from their flock. One might begin with 1997, when in an Interview with the MP entitled «Надо стремиться к единству Русской Православной Церкви, и в этом направлении я стал предпринимать осторожные шаги» (We Must Strive Towards the Unification of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in that Direction I Began to Take Careful Steps), Archbishop Mark of Germany clearly stated:

Archbishop Mark: “Конечно, безусловно! Надо довести церковный народ до такого сознания, что это- правильный путь» (Of course, indisputably! We must lead the people to such a state of mind, that this is - the right path.)

To this insolent statement vis-à-vis the people of ROCOR, which attempts to brainwash and lead people to a state of mind and which contradicts everything that ROCOR stands for, Metropolitan Vitalii replied:

Vladyko, no one ever, neither Sobor, nor Synod, nor I gave you permission to conduct these ongoing conferences, persistently leading towards a final resolution, as is written in your statement”

To Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco, Archbishop Mark of Germany is known to have written:

Thus, for those who find it hard to believe, the issue is quite simple and Bishop Mark made his position quite clear, ROCOR must unite with World Orthodoxy and Ecumenism, the “heresy of heresies”! One might mention that the May 2001 (SCOBA) Meeting of Orthodox Canonical [sic] Bishops, [as purposely entitled by the Press-Secretary Representative of the MP in the USA], has established a committee and an administrative board that will look into interjurisdictional Orthodox problems in America, with the purpose of «attracting and inviting bishops and representatives of various Orthodox jurisdictions». Slowly but surely, the Church Abroad, if left out of these ecumenical meetings, will begin to be viewed as uncanonical. The path is indeed, highly organized and planned down to even a very specific use of such denigrating vocabulary as uncanonical, sect, fanatic, mentally imbalanced, etc. The sinister Beria, Stalin’s right hand was one of the masterminds behind some of the tactics used to bring people to a state of mind:

It is not always necessary to remove the individual. It is possible to remove his self-willed tendencies to the improvement of the gaols and gains of the whole. The technologies of Psychopolitics are graduated upon the scale which starts somewhat above the removal of the individual himself, upward toward the removal only of those tendencies which bring about his lack of co-operation.

Any man who cannot be persuaded into Communist rationale is to be regarded as somewhat less than sane, and it is therefore completely justified to use the techniques of insanity upon the non-Communist. Entirely by bringing about public conviction that the sanity of a person is in question, it is possible to discount and eradicate all of the goals and activities of that person. By demonstrating the insanity of a group, or even a government, it is possible, then to cause its people to disavow it. By causing a revulsion on the part of the populace against its leader it is possible to stop any government or movement. “A paranoid believes he is being attacked by Communist.” Thus, at once the support of the individual so attacking Communism will fall away and wither. An entire revolution can be effected without the suspicion of a populace until it is an accomplished fact. Just as in Russia we had to destroy, after many, many years of the most arduous work, the Church, so we must destroy all faiths in nations marked for conquest.

The changes of loyalties, allegiances, and sources of command can be occasioned easily by psychopolitical technologies. Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices and national heroes must be systematically carried out, this is the chief function of Communist Party Members, in general, not only the psychopolitician. Every individual who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress.

Dimitry Pospielovsky, a graduate of the London School of Economics and “confident in the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate,” predicts the take-over of Rocor:

“To avoid confrontation and splits, the patriarch has chosen to avoid direct exposure and chastisement of the extremists within the church, concentrating instead on preaching morality, moderation and tolerance [the word tolerance in perestroika terminology, is often used promote conciliation and convergence] to the whole nation and its leaders… The renewed supreme ecclesiastic bodies, mandated by the whole church, commanding the respect and support of the flock, would then be able to take a stand, condemn extremism and racism, and ban dissemination of hatred by any groups within the church. Should this lead to some of the perpetrators of hate propaganda [sic!] joining the ROCOR or some or some other esoteric sect [sic!], it would not hurt the church as a whole; on the contrary, it would purify it and assure it of the position of spiritual leadership in the nation. Moreover, it is only then that the more moderate majority of the ROCOR membership would likely reunite with the mother church, and whatever might remain of the ROCOR would become irrelevant [sic!] as a small extremist sect.”

Why such a meticulously planned take over of Rocor? The answer is the same as “why perestroika?” Economics. Western hard currency for military advancement is an old trick, even before perestroika, from the likes of Armand Hammer who robbed Russia of its treasures, to Lenin’s NEP which fooled the world, to the Rosenbergs who gave away secrets to Soviets on jet engines. Soviets used them in the Korean war, before the US even had a chance to build them! Monastery and church lands forcibly being taken over by the MP are financially beneficial, and of course, power, control and modernization of Orthodoxy have something to do with it as well.

*We have to have all Russians united, wherever they live, whatever they preach!

Author: Why? What is their [the MP's] gain?

*Well, first, economic gain. The Russian community in some parts of the world is quite well off.

Archbishop Mark’s role, as a major leader in the process of unification, is quite clear from his writings and actions, as well from his choice of words, with such terminology as sectarians, fanatics, denigrating anyone dedicated to preserving the purity of Russian Orthodoxy. The Office of External Ecclesiastical Relations of the MP welcomed Archbishop Mark's efforts in joining the ecumenist World Orthodoxy:

On September 9, the body calling itself the Commission of German Orthodox Churches, which incorporates the German Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad headed by Archbishop of Berlin and Germany Mark, published a statement calling for continued communication between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and expressed its disappointment with the Appeal of the ROCA Archbishopric Council of May 13, 1998 which defies such communication.

On the occasion of Orthodox Sunday in 1992, chaired by ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and attended by the Head of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Heads of Holy Orthodox Churches and World Orthodoxy strongly denounced what they labeled as «the schismatic activities of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad». It is important to keep in mind that Rocor considers ecumenism as the «heresy of heresies» and leaders associated with ecumenical organizations during the course of the 20th century, including the World Council of Churches, are the same people, and descendants of those, who laid the path for and brought into being the Revolution.

I notice that you subscribe to the heresy of the new orthography of the Godless Bolsheviks.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...

I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...

I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...

I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?

In a figurative sense?

It seems like it says that this treatment of brain surgery to produce idiocy is being used today in Russia? Who exactly in Russia would be using this technique of brain surgery to produce idiocy ? Who are the patients or the victims of this surgery?"Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of ?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy,..."

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Why such a meticulously planned take over of Rocor? The answer is the same as “why perestroika?” Economics. Western hard currency for military advancement is an old trick,

Anybody here convinced by Dolskaya that the Russian Church Abroad united with the Moscow Patriarchate to further Russia's military advancement? How much money has flowed into Russia' military machine since the May 2007 union?

I think that this and other major blunders in Dolskaya's article are more than sufficient to call her credibility into question.

I see that the sections of this article being supplied by Pravoslav09 were written in 2006. Could anything be more embarassing than to be proven quite wrong with your predictions as the years unfold. I suspect that Dolskaya would prefer her article to be buried and not brought into the spotlight.

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

On the occasion of Orthodox Sunday in 1992, chaired by ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and attended by the Head of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Heads of Holy Orthodox Churches and World Orthodoxy strongly denounced what they labeled as «the schismatic activities of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad». It is important to keep in mind that Rocor considers ecumenism as the «heresy of heresies» and leaders associated with ecumenical organizations during the course of the 20th century, including the World Council of Churches, are the same people, and descendants of those, who laid the path for and brought into being the Revolution.

If memory serves, this statement by the heads of all Orthodox Churches was a condemnation of the activities of all schismatic groups, primarily the Old Calendaristic Movement, which was damaging the precious unity of the robe of Christ, the Holy Church, in various countries. The Russian Church Abroad was also guilty of this. Under the general confusion created by Perestroika some of our bishops (not all agreed with it) it had gone into Russia and created schismatic parishes and dioceses, something which the bishops later regretted. But such was the ebullient mood in those early post-communist days.

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references? This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible. However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources. I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.

Father, Russians, even more so than Greeks and Arabs, are champions of nursing conspiracy theories. I sincerely hope you're right about Mme Dolskaya later recanting her views of 2006, however, on the other hand, we have the arrant nonsense in Russia today of the ultranationalists (unsuccessfully) clamouring for the canonisation of Rasputin and Josef Stalin. Albert Einstein once said: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references? This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.

Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread. I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced. I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now. If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources. I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references? This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.

Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread. I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced. I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now. If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources. I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references? This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.

Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread. I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced. I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now. If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources. I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.

You did notice that, unlike all my previous posts on this thread, I did post the above in green text to indicate that I was posting as a moderator and not as a mere poster, thus indicating that I was addressing a totally different issue? If you want to discuss this moderatorial comment further, then I ask that you follow the same advice I just gave Irish Hermit and take it up with me in a private message--after all, it IS forum policy that you do so. I will not discuss this anymore here.

...Likewise, if he or I don't find your evidence convincing, then be prepared to defend your evidence in a good faith effort to convince us.

For the sake of underlining the paramount of (otherwise obvious) stupidity of the guy claiming to have "decend understanding of logic", I will say that I don't want to convince him in anything and I would (hypothetically) accept all the arguments and reasoning of Pravoslav'09, i.e. that Moscow Patriarchate is an apostate group established by Stalin. Consequently, since the guy claiming to have decent understanding of logic also claims to be of OCA flock (which I would for a moment also assume to be true for the sake of my point only), he himself, is a member of an apostate group, since that group (OCA) would either be an autonomous part of the very same apostate MP (in case I stand with those who don't recognize their autocephalia), or a distinct apostate group which was made independent (autocephalous) by apostate MP some 40-50 years after the apostasy (in case I stand with those who recignize OCA's autocephalia). Since he claims to be christmated twelve years ago (which I would also assume to be true for the sake of this debate only), he was christmated by apostates, whom, by definition, lack grace.

Now, the result of my reasoning demonstrates that I was right when I did not want to debate the issue of canonicity with him in the first place, for why would any Orthodox want to have canonicity recognized by an apostate, whom may as well never received grace and was never part of Church? Since when Church proves her canonicity to outsiders?

Yet, it isn't his stupidity that endangers him, for everyone gets the fitting cross. It's his malice.

I always prefer to read long articles on the Web where the format makes for better organisation and easier reading. Unfortunately the authoress provides no references, or none that I have found.

The article is in English and commences about 1/4 of the way down the page.

According to the article , I read:"A secret Soviet-era document uncovered in Estonia suggests that Patriarch Alexy II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and spiritual leader of tens of millions of Christians, was a fully fledged KGB agent….elected patriarch in 1990, he co-operated closely with the KGB under the code name Drozdov (Thrush)… he impressed the KGB with his eagerness, discretion and lively, forthcoming manner…from 1958 he was an active agent, using the KGB as a career ladder… to speed up the ladder he married to avoid the army, was ordained a deacon 4 days later, became the bishop of Tallin at 32, and in the same year rose rapidly within the WCC. He had a KGB officer whom he met with regularly in clandestine locations and who interrogated him. Agents Drozdov and Peresvyet traveled to England as part of the delegation to the Conference of European Churches.Drozdov was the only one of the churchmen in the KGB’s service to be officially honored with an award for outstanding intelligence services."

According to the article , I read:"A secret Soviet-era document uncovered in Estonia suggests that Patriarch Alexy II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and spiritual leader of tens of millions of Christians, was a fully fledged KGB agent….elected patriarch in 1990, he co-operated closely with the KGB under the code name Drozdov (Thrush)… he impressed the KGB with his eagerness, discretion and lively, forthcoming manner…from 1958 he was an active agent, using the KGB as a career ladder… to speed up the ladder he married to avoid the army, was ordained a deacon 4 days later, became the bishop of Tallin at 32, and in the same year rose rapidly within the WCC. He had a KGB officer whom he met with regularly in clandestine locations and who interrogated him. Agents Drozdov and Peresvyet traveled to England as part of the delegation to the Conference of European Churches.Drozdov was the only one of the churchmen in the KGB’s service to be officially honored with an award for outstanding intelligence services."

So far on this thread, nobody, nobody, has provided any shred of evidence, let alone proof, of heresy within the liturgical deposit of either the MP or ROCOR churches. I'm still waiting.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

According to the article , I read:"A secret Soviet-era document uncovered in Estonia suggests that Patriarch Alexy II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and spiritual leader of tens of millions of Christians, was a fully fledged KGB agent….elected patriarch in 1990, he co-operated closely with the KGB under the code name Drozdov (Thrush)… he impressed the KGB with his eagerness, discretion and lively, forthcoming manner…from 1958 he was an active agent, using the KGB as a career ladder… to speed up the ladder he married to avoid the army, was ordained a deacon 4 days later, became the bishop of Tallin at 32, and in the same year rose rapidly within the WCC. He had a KGB officer whom he met with regularly in clandestine locations and who interrogated him. Agents Drozdov and Peresvyet traveled to England as part of the delegation to the Conference of European Churches.Drozdov was the only one of the churchmen in the KGB’s service to be officially honored with an award for outstanding intelligence services."

Dear Stanley,

I haven't been able to do more than skim the article because of two visitors this evening. Does Dolskaya suggest the possibility that the young priest who eventually became patriarch was subjected to brain surgery to produce idiocy?

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...

I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?

In a figurative sense?

It seems like it says that this treatment of brain surgery to produce idiocy is being used today in Russia? Who exactly in Russia would be using this technique of brain surgery to produce idiocy ? Who are the patients or the victims of this surgery?"Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of ?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy,..."

I am not aware of any psychiatric hospitals in present-day Russia using any sort of treatment of patients aimed at their behavior modification the way it was practiced in the former USSR. However, a kind of "brain surgery" is being constantly performed in the Russian media, particularly on the Internet. There exist hundreds of extremely chauvnistic Web sites that talk about the revival of Russia, of her imperial grandeur. In parallel, the idea that other Slavic states have no raison-d'etre is being propagated. Just recently, the biggest Russian Orthodox Web site published a provocative article titled, "The Historical Truth and the Ukrainophile Propaganda," where it is said that Ukrainians as people do not exist (along the line of the official Russian imperial doctrine articulated in the infamous Ems statement of 1876). Here is the link to the Russian original, http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/volkon/Main.htm

The official position of high hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate on issues of politics has been in recent years extremely "pro-State," and utterly hostile to the newly independent post-Soviet states. During the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the head of the department of foreign affairs of the Moscow Patriarch's consistory called the Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko and other post-Soviet leaders "stinking yapping little dogs" ("mos'ki i shavki"), who "will soon have their rotten teeth crushed by the mighty Russian fist." High-positioned Russian Orthodox hierarchs publicly sanctify ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction during specially prepared televised shows of force.

All this, most definitely, works as the "brain surgery" for millions of ordinary Russians.

This post is just a reply to Stanley123's question - not intended to be a start of a political debate, for which there is no room on this particular OC.net forum.

I think that such things have always been part of our religious practices. As Alveus noted recently:

"Well, it shouldn't be that big of a shock. This sort of thing is inevitable, and is no different than asking the Theotokos for victory in battle (i.e. "help us to kill more people than they do"), or having the priests pray over troops for victory against enemies before they rode off into battle, or painting the Chi Rho on shields, hearing the voice of Christ himself. "In this sign, conquer!" Basically: "Put my initials on your weaponry, and I will assist you in your warfare!"

"Such a thing is simply the same logic taken into the modern/industrial world. I'm not saying it is right, I am just saying that it has been happening for a long time, and it's not like any other religious group is exempt from the same sort of behavior. Zen Buddhist priests in Japan during WWII, Protestant ministers during the US Civil War, the Thirty Years' War; the mantra is the same: Protect your holy people and holy lands from enemies, Lord!"

... There exist hundreds of extremely chauvnistic Web sites that talk about the revival of Russia, of her imperial grandeur. In parallel, the idea that other Slavic states have no raison-d'etre is being propagated. Just recently, the biggest Russian Orthodox Web site published a provocative article titled, "The Historical Truth and the Ukrainophile Propaganda," where it is said that Ukrainians as people do not exist (along the line of the official Russian imperial doctrine articulated in the infamous Ems statement of 1876). Here is the link to the Russian original, http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/volkon/Main.htm

While it sounds unpleasant to devoted to "the Ukrainian cause", two questions beg the answer:

1) What does "hundreds of web sites" have with regard to the apostasy of ROCOR, which is the subject of this thread?

2) Since certain Ukrainian groups organized some bodies, claiming to be churches, among which at least one in US officially proclaims "ukrainianism" to be the foundation if their faith, while you, yourself, are periodically asking on these boards everyone else when we will cease treating them like they deserve, why are you bringing much more mild attitude of certain web sites in Russia in relation to ROCOR, and as an accusation against her?

The official position of high hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate on issues of politics has been in recent years extremely "pro-State," and utterly hostile to the newly independent post-Soviet states.

I am not aware MP has "official position" on politics. Could you quote your sources?

During the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the head of the department of foreign affairs of the Moscow Patriarch's consistory called the Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko and other post-Soviet leaders "stinking yapping little dogs" ("mos'ki i shavki"), who "will soon have their rotten teeth crushed by the mighty Russian fist."

Which other "post-Soviet leaders" were called "moshki i chavki"? Moreover, is it a feature of apostasy to call someone a stinking doggy? BTW, one suffering inferiority complex of not being "European" enough, as explained here

Quote

As a former Austrian minister once said (and like many others think so without saying it): Europe ends where Orthodoxy begins

The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church "certainly plays an important role as a powerful basis of our national identity and bearer of our inseparable connection with Europe," Yuschenko said on Monday at a meeting with students and seminarians of the St. Josaphat Ukrainian Papal Collegium in the Vatican.

might not deserve to be called a doggy, but some people may feel he deserves to be called stinking. Are they all apostates? Would the same criterion be applied to those calling some other group "pathetic for being expelled from their own country by bolsheviks"?

Did he mention his wish the missils are to prevent the spawns of Satan to do to Russia what they did to Iraq, to Lebanon and to my country, based on the very same accusations that are proven false subsequently? (And we do know who is the Father of all lies, don't we?)

^^Dear OL, like I said before, I am NOT taking sides in this thread and I did not mean my post to be a proof of ROCOR's or ROC-MP's apostasy. Again, I was merely answering the question of one of the posters in this thread.

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Ecumenism

Although a discussion of ecumenism is outside the scope of the present work, it is crucial for every Orthodox to become acquainted with its perilous consequences. As to the WCC, here is a small window into its relationship with the MP:

Author: Why did they [the MP] join the WCC?

*Well, they joined to snoop around, to look for potential gains. Don’t forget that the the ROC was very actively used to promote the cause of Peace- to unite peace loving people against the US, as the no. 1 potential aggressor. So ROC tried to influence these church officials, through the WCC, that Soviet Union foreign policies were very peaceful [sic!], aimed at Universal Peace and nothing else. It was the US and NATO allies who undermined the world stability. So in their own subtle way, they tried to simply spread Soviet propaganda - it was a tool of Soviet propaganda inside the WCC. That was their mission, and also, to look for some weak spots among individual priests, Protestant and Catholic - were not alien to communist ideology. In fact in Italy some Catholics were voting Communist! Also ROC looked for potential friends among other denominations, trying to take them over to their side. “Let’s work together for World Peace” thus softening, of course, the resistance towards communism.

“The leadership of the MP actually supports dragging Russia into the system of the new world order and traditional ecumenical contacts of MP with the World Council of Churches and Congress of European Churches are openly being transformed into participation in the work of global inter-religious unification operating under the aegis of a world government. The appeal expresses serious doubt that genuine national and church regeneration is taking place in Russia. Russia’s participation in the process of globalization will inevitably lead to a loss of national sovereignty over the maintenance of its appearance and can become the last stage in state degradation.”

The process of unification through deceitful convergence is indeed, and very obviously so, well under way.

...The terms schismatic and sect have been used by various ecumenical, world Orthodoxy and MP writers and spokespeople to denigrate the Church Abroad and to gradually instill in its flock that it has no right to exist. This tactic, typical of communist and ecumenical brainwashing techniques...

...In addition, the term sect has also been used by the Putin regime to enact and enforce its “law of no tolerance” with regards to sects, for the purpose of especially targeting the Russian Church Abroad which it considers a sect...*

Note: Christian and non christian religious denominations that are involved in the ecumenical movement, and those who represent a majority in powerful nations, are not labeled as sects, and according to the new law, those who are not sects, are free to operate, and have temples for public worship.

In this way, while anglicans, protestants, moslem, jews and other religions are protected by the new law, the ROCOR is still persecuted, "according to law".

One of the preconditions for the capitulation of ROCOR to the MP was that ecumenism will not be even mentioned, and as Patriarch Alexis II insolently said "they have to come to their senses, and see the importance of ecumenical and inter-religious activities."

The anathema against ecumenism, the heresy of heresies, done by ROCOR, is considered one of the worst "schismatic activities" of ROCOR by the MP and World Orthodoxy, this anathema has not been removed nor canceled.

There won't be any talk and discussion about ecumenism in this thread, this was just a short cross reference, to illustrate how the communist utopia is still carried on, how ecumenism is a tool for the accomplishment of the "internationala" (global unification dictated by socialism, materialism, liberalism and other revolutionary goals), and the leading role of the Moscow Patriarchate in this process.

Note: Christian and non christian religious denominations that are involved in the ecumenical movement,

Ecumenism is a movement to restore the unity of Christians. Many of the journalists use the word and have completely no idea what does it mean. Jews had talks with RCs - it's called an ecumenical meeting; RC's had meeting with Greek-Caths - again "ecumenical meeting"; consultations in Geneva - "inter-Orthodox ecumenism".

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references? This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.

Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread. I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced. I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now. If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

After clarifying this point of policy further with Fr. Chris, the rule of source documentation is merely that Pravoslav09 (as well as Irish Hermit) must credit his sources, which he has done. This policy does not extend to the sources his sources have used, so he bears no requirement to supply any documents that the authors of his sources have referenced. To ask him to do this therefore goes beyond the scope of Forum policy on this matter.

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references? This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.

Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread. I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced. I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now. If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

After clarifying this point of policy further with Fr. Chris, the rule of source documentation is merely that Pravoslav09 (as well as Irish Hermit) must credit his sources, which he has done. This policy does not extend to the sources his sources have used, so he bears no requirement to supply any documents that the authors of his sources have referenced. To ask him to do this therefore goes beyond the scope of Forum policy on this matter.

I am so grateful for such a principled moderation that I posted on two old threads with the reference to this moderation, to be able to continue debate there in compliance with the clarified rules of moderation regarding crediting sources.

The anathema against ecumenism, the heresy of heresies, done by ROCOR, is considered one of the worst "schismatic activities" of ROCOR by the MP and World Orthodoxy, this anathema has not been removed nor canceled.

There won't be any talk and discussion about ecumenism in this thread, this was just a short cross reference, to illustrate how the communist utopia is still carried on, how ecumenism is a tool for the accomplishment of the "internationala" (global unification dictated by socialism, materialism, liberalism and other revolutionary goals), and the leading role of the Moscow Patriarchate in this process.

If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?

It would be nice to have a definition of ecumenism, so we can know what are the specific objections. If ecumenism with reference to Catholicism means to have collaboration of the two Churches in defense of Christian values, then I don't see the objection to it. On February 1, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI sent a delegation and a message on the occasion of Orthodox Patriarch Kirill’s “enthronement as the new Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia.” “To His Holiness Kirill Patriarch of Moscow and of All Russia: “I greet Your Holiness with joy as you undertake the great responsibility of shepherding the venerable Russian Orthodox Church. I readily recall the good will which characterized our meetings at the time of your service as President of the Department of Eternal Church Relations. On the occasion of your enthronement I wish, therefore, to reaffirm my esteem and my spiritual closeness. I pray that our heavenly Father will grant you the abundant gifts of the Holy Spirit in your ministry and enable you to guide the Church in the love and peace of Christ. You are now the successor of our beloved brother of revered memory, His Holiness Alexy II, who left his people a deep and abiding inheritance of ecclesial renewal and development, as he led the Russian Orthodox Church out of the long and difficult period of suffering under the totalitarian and atheistic system to a new, active presence and service in today’s society. Patriarch Alexy II worked assiduously for the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church and for communion with the other Orthodox Churches. He likewise maintained a spirit of openness and cooperation with other Christians, and with the Catholic Church in particular, for the defense of Christian values in Europe and in the world. I am certain that Your Holiness will continue to build on this solid foundation, for the good of your people and for the benefit of Christians everywhere….

“Conscious of the enormous responsibilities which accompany the spiritual and pastoral ministry to which the Holy Spirit has called you, I renew to Your Holiness the assurance of my prayers and fraternal good will. I ask Almighty God to bless you with his love, to watch over the beloved Russian Church, and to sustain the Bishops, priests and all the faithful in the unfailing hope which is ours in Christ Jesus.”

If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?

It would be nice to have a definition of ecumenism, so we can know what are the specific objections.

Dear Stanley,

I doubt if Pravoslav09 will supply a definition of ecumenism. I have asked for a definition of "apostasy" so that we have an idea what the purpose of this thread is and so that we may discuss it.

But there is no reply. In fact it sees to me that Pravoslav09 has not shown any desire to use this Forum for what it is meant to be, a discussion group. Instead, so it seems to me, he is using it as an Internet platform where he as a member of the Russian Zarist Church can post negative articles attacking the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. No attempt on his part to discuss them with Forum members.

There won't be any talk and discussion about ecumenism in this thread, this was just a short cross reference, to illustrate how the communist utopia is still carried on, how ecumenism is a tool for the accomplishment of the "internationala" (global unification dictated by socialism, materialism, liberalism and other revolutionary goals), and the leading role of the Moscow Patriarchate in this process.

Do I read you correctly? After posting an article attacking the Russian Church and ecumenism you then try to forbid us to discuss it. May I remind you that this is a discussion forum and forum members may comment on and discuss whatever you post. But you do not seem willing to engage in a discussion with us. You seem to be using the forum as a vehicle to propagate your viewpoint and as a platform to attack Orthodox Churches.... and those who may desire to respond are told not to discuss it !!??

Perhaps it is now time for the moderators to show some spine and either call Pravoslav09 to account, or close this ridiculous thread. It seems to me that certain folks can get away with a lot, yet others on this forum are "ridden hard" over quite slight, or even non-existent infractions.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Ecumenism

We would do well to look to Saint Mark of Ephesus as our holy model for our engagement with non-Orthodox Churches.

Was he against isolationism - Yes! Saint Mark made the difficult journey of thousands of miles to attend a great "ecumenical" council of Roman Catholics, Byzantine Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox which had been convened in Italy by the Pope of Rome. He did not isolate himself and refuse to go into the lion's den and discuss disputed theology. These days he would be anathematized for his attendance at Florence by many of the parallel Churches.

Was he against confessional mix and confusion: Yes! Saint Mark of Ephesus refused to accept that the Church could exist as a confessional mix of all the Churches present at the Council he attended in Florence Italy. The Church could not be a mix of Catholics under the Pope, the Byzantine Orthodox in communion with Constantinople, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the other Churches at Florence.

Let us look to Saint Mark as an example and model of how we ourselves should act in a modern "ecumenical" situation - on the one hand, willing to talk so that the desire of Christ to have those who love Him in old sheepfold is alive and able to be realised, and on the other hand not willing to compromise our faith and create theological or confessional mix.

When one looks at the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church we see that the principles of engagement evidenced by Saint Mark are adhered to by the Russian Church. The Russian Church has not wavered on one iota of the Orthodox Faith.

When one looks at the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church we see that the principles of engagement evidenced by Saint Mark are adhered to by the Russian Church. The Russian Church has not wavered on one iota of the Orthodox Faith.

Quite right, Father. And this is proven by the complete lack of heresy in the liturgical deposits of both the MP and ROCA arms of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Moscow, July 11, Interfax - The Russian Church Bishops' Councilrecently held in Moscow has "decisively dissociated from two extremeideologies," deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department forExternal Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said.

"On one side, it is Bishop Diomid's isolation and identifyingOrthodoxy with a certain political choice. On the other, it is "aconfessional mix" and the so-called theory of branches which equalsall Christian confessions that supposedly belong to one living tree,"Fr. Vsevolod told an Interfax-Religion correspondent on Friday.

"I think the question of our participation in ecumenical prayersmessing up Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions is settledonce and forever," the priest said.

He reminded that once the Orthodox participation in such prayers wasjustified as "then Western Christians were closer to us in true faithkept by the Orthodox Church, while today they, especially the worldof liberal Protestantism, have got even further from the possibilityof such unity."

According to the priest, the Council stated that "witness to thetruth of the Holy Orthodoxy" is an objective of inter-Christian andinter-religious dialogues, and the councilor decision reads that theRussian Orthodox Church "doesn't accept any attempts to "mixconfessions," to hold joint prayer services that artificially combineconfessional or religious traditions."

Besides, Fr. Vsevolod further said, one of the Council's preliminarydocuments - theological and canonical analysis of letters and appealssigned by Bishop Diomid - reminds of "the very clear thought statedin the Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian OrthodoxChurch Towards the Non-Orthodox, that the Orthodox Church is "theone, holy catholic and apostolic Church."

The interviewee of the agency noted that the Theological andcanonical analysis also stated that "Orthodox believers can visitCatholic or Protestant churches, attend non-Orthodox service withoutvoiced or inner prayer, Orthodox prayer before all-Christian shrinesis also acceptable while public or private prayers with non-Orthodoxare inadmissible for Orthodox believers."-----------------------------

The multiple aspects of the Apostasy of ROCOR - A brief history of one the apostate ROCOR Churches, known as ROCOR(RTOC) and as ROCOR(T).

Of recent days, those most vocally opposed to the Act of Canonical Communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), have suggested that membership in the socalled “Russian True Orthodox Church” (RTOC) would be an alternative to accepting any compromise with Moscow. However, not everyone is aware of who or what the “Russian True Orthodox Church” is and where it comes from.

Like so many other schismatic groups the “Russian True Orthodox Church” tries to give itself an aura of historical legitimacy. Allusions to it being the natural successor to the Catacomb Church as founded by St Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd, are not founded on fact. In reality the last of the Catacomb bishops, Archbishop Antony GalinskyMikhailovsky died in Kiev in 1976 and was survived by a number of priests, but no bishop. Consequently, the Catacomb Church, having no bishop came to an end.

In 1981, the Synod of ROCOR secretly consecrated Fr Lazarus Zhurbenko, an archimandrite, who had been ordained to the diaconate and priesthood by a Moscow Patriarchal hierarch, Archbishop Benjamin Novitsky of Irtutsk; to be bishop for the various catacomb traditions in Russia. By the time Bishop Lazarus was consecrated, the Synod had realised that there were no canonical catacomb traditions left that could show clearly they possessed Apostolic Succession. This was confirmed by Bishop Lazarus himself when he first attended a meeting of the Synod in New York. An Ukase was then issued to this effect based on Bishop Lazarus’ deposition. Therefore, from 1989 onwards, all catacomb clergy coming to ROCOR were ordained anew to ensure their canonical status.

This single act of intervention by ROCOR into Russia, no matter how well intentioned or that it was in response to the pleas of catacomb Orthodox in Russia, created two factions within the Orthodox Church in Russia, they were: the Synod of ROCOR with its official parishes and the Suzdal group headed by the spurious “metropolitan”, Valentine Rusantsev. The ROCOR bishop empowered to oversee the affairs of the Synod in Russia was Bishop Varnava Prokopiev. He turned out to be quite gullible and was often manipulated by unscrupulous people which brought discredit upon the Church Abroad. He also played a significant role in creating trouble between the Suzdal group and other catacomb communities under Bishop Lazarus.

In 1991, the Sobor of Bishops of ROCOR, under the primacy of Metropolitan Vitaly Ustinoff declared that “the time had now come to enter into frank discussions with all of the separated parts of the Russian Church without any preconditions.” This became the starting point for a long, often unnoticed, process of dialogue to commence – which has brought the two parts of the Russian Church to formulate and Act of Canonical Communion. Nevertheless, the process was not a secret one and included joint academic symposiums e.g. Budapest 2001, seven meetings of the Joint Committee (established in 2003) representing both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad and innumerable meetings by individual bishops and other clergy. In Australia, two diocesan conferences were held where the issues of Joint Recognition were raised and delegates were sent to attend the 2003 Clergy Conference in Nyack, USA and the VI AllDiaspora Sobor in San Francisco in 2006. To accuse the Synod of Bishops of secrecy in this matter is distortion unworthy of any Christian..... Very Rev Dr Michael Protopopov

If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?

According to Prof. Olga Dolskaya, ecumenism is a tool of communism.

One of the main roles of the Moscow Patriarchate in it's ecumenical activities is gain the trust of the Russian diaspora worldwide, and convince them to submit to itself and the Russian Government.

It is during the ecumenical activities, that the Moscow Patriarchate aids the Russian Government. The MP disseminates state propaganda, and constantly discredits and plots against ROCOR and other religious groups of the Russian diaspora that refuse to unite with it.

One example was the constant discrediting of ROCOR, and the plot that lead to the dissolution of a large part of ROCOR, into the Moscow Patriarchate.

The Russian Government claims all Russian diaspora to be it's own people, and stresses the fact that now that "communism has fallen" there must be a global national unity among every single russian in the diaspora. Following this new policy, the Moscow Patriarchate in the ecumenical meetings, attempts by all means to get hold of all Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, and this lead to serious conflicts, specially with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which, according to the Moscow Patriarchate, must "return" the jurisdictions that "belong" to the Moscow Patriarchate, such as the Lithuanian Orthodox Church, the Ukranian Orthodox Church, the Western European Russian Eparchy, the Carpato-Russian diocese, among others.

Deeds speak louder than words. Now that the communist tyrant "has fallen" Why has it's tyranny gained so much force and momentum now days?

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

COMMUNISM HAS NOT FALLEN

One of the most often heard statements in defense of the unification process is the notion that communism has fallen, and therefore talks and committees can be formed to discuss that which stands in the way of unification. This kind of thinking presupposes that indeed a change of guard has taken place in Russia, and that the MP is now a legitimate church with which one can talk and even merge. In reality the insidious ways of those who created the Revolution, the Internatsional and persecution of the Orthodox, have unfortunately not ended with perestroika.

It is in the reform movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, existing side by side with the liberal intelligentsia, the Social Revolutionaries and those preparing the path to the revolution, that one finds the roots to the on-going destruction of Orthodoxy.

«Решили реформировать Церковь Божию.. Для этой пагубной цели эти враги истинной Церкви мнящие себя последователями первенствующей апостольской Церкви... они постараются увлечь за собой маловерующих из интеллигенции... Собор возбуждающаго в некоторой части нашего духовенства и так называемой интеллигенции дикия желания внести посредством реформ в православную Церковь чисто протестантский дух» (They have decided to reform the Church... For this perilous goal, these enemies of the True Church, having labeled themselves as the followers of the early Apostolic Church... will try to lure those members of intelligentsia who have little faith… the Sobor will arouse in some of our clergy and in the so-called intelligentsia an incredible desire to introduce into the Orthodox Church reforms of a purely Protestant nature.)

The reform movement with its direct line to renovationism and ecumenism, was active in infiltrating the church for years before the revolution and it continues to do so today. The circle included the future лже-патриарх (false patriarch) Sergei Stragorodsky, who even before the Revolution worked to destroy Orthodoxy, and who, then after the Revolution, viciously persecuted the Church and led its faithful to their deaths.

Либерально-реформационное движение подготовило почву - идеологическую, социально-политическую, философскую, подготовило кадры для будущей обновлеческой реформации… Уже задолго до революции зарождалась внутри Церкви новая неверная церковь «блудница». Все это собрание разрозненных группировок и личностей старалось посредством пропаганды создавать революционную реформационную атмосферу в Церкви. (The 20th century, the century of the reign of the dark forces, started from about 1904. The dark forces had by then prepared the war with Japan that nobody needed, and that ended disastrously for Russia. By means of propaganda and difficulties caused by the war, they created a revolutionary atmosphere in the country. Already then, in the Church, among the clergy, appeared a number of characters with revolutionary views. The future patriarch of the ROC, Sergei (Stragorodsky) appeared on various committees in St. Petersburg in leadership position of chairman [he presided]. From amongst all the clergy who participated on these committees, Bishop Sergei (Stragorodsky) always held the most radical position and he recognized the freedom of worship and the need for the separation of Church and state [!!!] The liberal-reformationist movement paved the way- ideologically, socio-politically, philosophically- for the future renovationist reform movement… Already long before the revolution, was conceived within the Church [through these infiltrators] the new «whore [false] church». All these groups and their diverse opinions, were trying by means of propaganda, to create a revolutionary reform-minded atmosphere in the Church).

The offspring of the reform movement, the Living Church was to do away with His Holiness Patriarch St. Tikhon and that which he represented, true Orthodoxy. Here is a window into their insidious ways, for the reader to compare with what is taking place today.

Тихона вызвать и затребовать от него в 24 часа публикации, отлучения от церкви лишения сана и отречения от должности вышеуказанного духовенства, а также потребовать от него издания специального послания заграничному православному духовенству и выдаче представителям Соввласти ценностей находящихся в заграничных церквах. В случае если Тихон откажется от исполнения вышеуказанных требований такового немедленно арестовать предъявив ему все обвинения совершенных им против Советской Власти по совокупности. Тогда перед нами встала задача обработать Тихона, так чтобы он не только извинился перед Советской властью, но и покаялся в своих преступлениях и тем самым поставил бы в глупое положение- монархистов. Благодаря созданной для Тихона обстановки и условий, где он содержался под стражей, а также и правильно сделанного к нему подхода, Тихона удалось убедить и он собственноручно написал раскаяние, которое конечно, не могло не поразить его друзей считавших его три дня тому назад стойким и неустрашимым человеком… (Call for Tikhon and demand from him within 24 hours, that he publish his excommunication from the church, with loss of rank and renunciation of responsibility of the above-mentioned clergy along with him, and also demand from him that he write a special decree to the clergy of the church abroad and ask that all valuables in churches abroad be relinquished to the representatives of the Soviet Power. In case Tikhon refuses from performing these said demands, arrest him immediately and present him with all the charges committed by him against the Soviet Power...Then in front of us rose the need to «work Tikhon over», in order that he will not only beg forgiveness of the Soviet Power, but that he confesses his crimes and thus would put in a bad position- the monarchists… Thanks to the creation for Tikhon of a special environment and conditions, where he was under arrest and guards, as well as the right kind of tactics, we were successful in persuading him and he penned his confession, which of course, could not but surprise his friends who 3 days ago thought of him as a firm and fearless person [excellent brainwashing tactics at work].)

Противодействие Тихона изъятию ценностей есть преступление (Tikhon's opposition to the seizure of church valuables is a crime) Нужен-ли Патриарх? Вместо патриарха не оставить-ли во главе церкви «коллегию» но без присутствия в ней контр-револьционных элементов (даже в канцеляриях) (Do we need a Patriarch? Instead of a patriarch, should we not put at the head of the church a "committee" but without the presence in it of any counter-revolutionary elements (not even in the secretariat)).

In the writings of the revolutionary Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich, we can observe the task of the Bolshevik-led Living Church unfold:

Духовенство должно было свернуть своего вчерашнего властелина и главу, Патриарха Тихона. Они люди полезные и нужные для творчества новой жизни [комунизма]...Они назначили в Храм Христа Спасителя хитрейшаго политикана из своей среды, делающего церковную политику, прот. Красницкого [один из вождей Живой Церкви]. Не надо думать что церковь слаба, что она разложилась, упала. Неть она еще сильна и мы не ослабевая ни на минуту должны наносить ей удар за ударом своей открытой пропагандой наших идей, нашего материалистического миросозерцания, помня раз и навсегда, то само религиозное миросозерцание глубоко враждебно всему нашему строю мыслей... с религией нужно боротся до конца, пока человек совершенно очистится от этой проказной шелухи, от всех религиозных предрассудков. Религиозная мысль- одна из самых консервативных дисциплин и боротся с ней надо во что бы то не стало. Особенно союзу молодежи. (The clergy had to overthrow its past landlord and leader, Patr. Tikhon. Some people are useful and needed for instituting the new life [communism]... they appointed at the Christ the Savior Church a most cunning politician, one of their own, who promulgates church politics, Fr. Krasnitsky [one of the leaders of the Living Church]... Do not think that the church is weak, that it has crumbled, fallen. No, it is still strong and, we, not weakening for a minute, must inflict upon it blow after blow, with open propaganda of our ideas, of our materialistic world view, remembering once and for all, that the religious world view is deeply damaging to our order of thinking... we must fight religion to its end, until man will totally cleanse himself from this leprosy peel and from all religious beliefs/prejudices. Religious thinking is one of the most conservative disciplines and fight it, we must at all cost, especially with the help of our youth).

The multiple aspects of the Apostasy of ROCOR - A brief history of one the apostate ROCOR Churches, known as ROCOR(RTOC) and as ROCOR(T).

By the year 2000, it became quite evident that Metropolitan Vitaly Ustinoff, aged 90 years, was suffering from severe dementia. A Council of ROCOR Bishops was summoned and the metropolitan’s retirement as Primate of the Church Abroad was accepted in July 2001. Following the election of a new Primate, Metropolitan Laurus Skurla, a series of events occurred which found Metropolitan Vitaly whisked away to Mansonville, Quebec, Canada, and denied his proper place at the Synodal headquarters in New York. This was engineered by persons close to the metropolitan and who wanted to continue their personal influence on the Church through the aged hierarch. With the decision to commence joint dialogue with Moscow, the opponents to the election of Metropolitan Laurus and the new course of the Church Abroad, decided to use the retired metropolitan to oppose any steps towards unity within the Russian Church.

The first to approach Emeritus Metropolitan Vitaly was Valentine Rusantsev of the Suzdal group, which first called itself the “Free Russian Orthodox Church” (FROC) and later changed its name to “Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC). However, Metropolitan Vitaly rejected all overtures from this quarter as he firmly believed the Suzdal group to be totally uncanonical and Rusantsev to be deposed. However, in Mansonville, Bishop Varnava Prokopiev, having been suspended in his episcopacy in 2001 for a number of canonical violations, came from France and manipulated the confused metropolitan to renounce his retirement and declare himself to be Primate of the “Russian Orthodox Church in Exile” (ROCiE). In fact, Bishop Varnava became de facto head of this new and uncanonical, organisation and used the name and reputation of Metropolitan Vitaly to further his own ends. Two other bishops also decided to join the new ROCiE organisation in Mansonville. Archbishop Lazarus Zhurbenko and Bishop Benjamin Rusalenko who had at one time gone to the Suzdal group and returned to the ROCOR, now left again without a canonical release. This meant that the Synod of ROCOR placed both bishops under ecclesiastical ban for breaking their oaths of loyalty to their Synod.

Whilst now clerics of the uncanonical “Russian Orthodox Church in Exile,” the banned bishops Lazarus and Benjamin, living in Russia and being far from Emeritus Metropolitan Vitaly in Canada, whom they claimed to acknowledge as their ecclesiastical superior, decided in 2002 to consecrate a number of new “bishops.” One of these was Tikhon Pasechnik. Tikhon, (Leonid Alympievich Pasechnik) was born in 1948 and studied at the Kharkov Engineering Institute. He became a builder, married in 1985 and widowed in 1993. That same year he joined the Omsk parish of ROCOR and was tonsured a monk in 1998. The subsequent year, 1999, Bishop Evtihy of Omsk ordained him to the priesthood but found him to be so lacking in theology that he would not appoint him to a separate parish. The following year Tikhon left ROCOR to join Archbishop Lazarus in schism.

Although Bishop Benjamin sought Metropolitan Vitaly’s permission for the proposed consecrations in 2002, the metropolitan noted that it would be necessary for the election of a new bishop to have the approval of the synod of bishops. Nevertheless, the consecrations took place and Metropolitan Vitaly on two occasions published his refusal to recognise the consecrations as valid. In his first declaration (28 July 2003) Metropolitan Vitaly states that the actions of Lazarus and Benjamin have placed them outside of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in his second declaration (19 November 2004) the metropolitan states that; “the uncanonical consecrations of the hieromonks Dionysius, Herman, Tikhon and Ireinei by Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin are invalid” and that he will have no liturgical communion with them.

Consequently, neither the Synod of ROCOR under Metropolitan Laurus, not the “Synod” of ROCiE under Emeritus Metropolitan Vitaly has recognised the spurious claims of Tikhon Pasechnik, to be a canonical bishop of the Christian Church, let alone the successor of the Catacomb Church in Russia. Therefore, logically the organisation Pasechnik heads and which he calls the “Russian True Orthodox Church” has no basis in fact. The “Russian True Orthodox Church” has neither historic antecedents, legal standing, canonical foundation or Grace to be called a Church. ..... Very Rev Dr Michael Protopopov

It seems to me that certain folks can get away with a lot, yet others on this forum are "ridden hard" over quite slight, or even non-existent infractions.

Done bloviating yet?

Oh, my, PtA. It seems orthodoxlurker was quite right. You have openly crowed about your credentials in logic, yet we now see the unedifying spectacle of you resorting to cheap shots like these. Care to explain your reaction to the post I have referred to?

« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 10:07:36 PM by LBK »

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Perhaps it is now time for the moderators to show some spine and either call Pravoslav09 to account, or close this ridiculous thread. It seems to me that certain folks can get away with a lot, yet others on this forum are "ridden hard" over quite slight, or even non-existent infractions.

Dear LBK,

I am not sure what exactly seems ridiculous to you and maybe others here. I am this section's moderator and I sincerely want to make sure that the rules of this site are observed in this section's thread. However, Pravoslav09, as far as I understand, may quote any sources he wishes, as long as there are no ad hominems there, and there are no profanities, etc. What exactly do you want me to do? One thing you can rest assured of, I will most definitely consult with other, more experienced, moderators as well as with the administrators of this Web site. But, in any case, please do not expect me or anyone else to take sides in this highly controversial thread without really knowing all the ins and outs of the issues at hand. That would not be fair and that would be an assault of the Truth - something that we all, I believe, intend to serve here...

If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?

According to Prof. Olga Dolskaya, ecumenism is a tool of communism.

One of the main roles of the Moscow Patriarchate in it's ecumenical activities is gain the trust of the Russian diaspora worldwide, and convince them to submit to itself and the Russian Government.

It is during the ecumenical activities, that the Moscow Patriarchate aids the Russian Government. The MP disseminates state propaganda, and constantly discredits and plots against ROCOR and other religious groups of the Russian diaspora that refuse to unite with it.

One example was the constant discrediting of ROCOR, and the plot that lead to the dissolution of a large part of ROCOR, into the Moscow Patriarchate.

The Russian Government claims all Russian diaspora to be it's own people, and stresses the fact that now that "communism has fallen" there must be a global national unity among every single russian in the diaspora. Following this new policy, the Moscow Patriarchate in the ecumenical meetings, attempts by all means to get hold of all Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, and this lead to serious conflicts, specially with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which, according to the Moscow Patriarchate, must "return" the jurisdictions that "belong" to the Moscow Patriarchate, such as the Lithuanian Orthodox Church, the Ukranian Orthodox Church, the Western European Russian Eparchy, the Carpato-Russian diocese, among others.

Deeds speak louder than words. Now that the communist tyrant "has fallen" Why has it's tyranny gained so much force and momentum now days?

Why is the MP a tool of the Russian State?

Where is the real change?

How during Perestroyka and after, did you get parishes in Russia, if things have not changed?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

We don't appreciate your rudeness towards our hard-working moderators. This is the second time you've done it (first time was during the controversy in January). This is your official notice to take up moderatorial actions in private, instead of making ridiculous claims that our moderators are lacking in spine.